Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TAM Airbuses Order  
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

TAM announced it is buying 10 brand new Airbuses, starting deliveries beginning 2005. Total number of Airbuses will increase to 64 with this order.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5025 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Great news, but i don't see anything yet on the Airbus website. Do you happen to have a link to a source for this?

User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

The information is still inside the company. But appears a small note about this on a weekly magazine in Brazil called "VEJA".

User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Any details on the type(s) involved in this deal? Narrowbodies or widebodies?


Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineGaleaocumbica From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

So, TAM is trying to replace the killer machine F-100...

Hope they do it fast...


User currently offlineFokker50 From Colombia, joined Jun 2004, 359 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

What do you mean:
"So, TAM is trying to replace the killer machine F-100..."

Bogota, the South american gateway!
User currently offlineArcano From Chile, joined Mar 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

JJMNGR: Will be for 319s?

Remember that in 99, LA, TA and JJ made a joint order for 320s. After 9-11, LA changed the remain 320s in order for 319, and bought another bunch of 319s.

in order: 721,146,732,763,722,343,733,320,772,319,752,321,88,83,744,332,100,738, 333, 318, 77W, 78, 773 and 380
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Here's the text of the article I saw this morning:

Brazil's TAM Buying Airbus Jets - Forbes - 07/26/04

"Brazil's largest airline, TAM Linhas Aereas SA, will buy 10 Airbus passenger jets to expand its fleet, the carrier said Monday.

The cost of the Airbus 320s was not disclosed, but TAM said they would be delivered over a four-year period starting next year.

The airline also has an option to buy 20 more of the jets and will make a decision after reviewing prospects for passenger demand in the South American market, the company said. The carrier already has 53 Airbus jets.

The airline is also considering an initial public stock offering early next year in Sao Paulo and New York to raise between US$100 million and US$200 million. TAM currently lists less than 1 percent of its stock in Sao Paulo.

Brazil's Rolim family owns 73 percent of the airline's capital, with the rest held by investment funds.

The country's No. 3 airline, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes SA, raised about US$280 million last month through an IPO in Sao Paulo and New York. Most of the money will help finance an expansion that could eventually triple the company's fleet of Boeing 737s."

User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1848 times:


User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

It's been discussed at length on numerous threads: TAM's F100s have an unfortunate safety record of 5 serious incidents over the last decade--2 resulting on the same day (30 AUG 2002), 3 of them involving fatalities (99 in total), and 3 resulting in hull losses. The airline cannot be 100% exonerated from blame in any of the incidents for various reasons, ranging from maintenance to security.
TAM is an excellent airline, but I'm sure they'll be happy to be rid of their problematic Fokkers which have tainted an otherwise spotless safety record.


How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineYak42 From Ireland, joined Oct 2000, 801 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Fokkers are good aircraft. Cant put any blame Fokker's way for these accidents. TAM must have neglected them.

User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Yak42, while Fokkers are good aircraft, I think it isn't fair to be placing the blame squarely on TAM - to use your words (in a modified way), TAM is a good airline.

The fact that other airlines have reported problems with Fokkers (I remember reading that this was one of the reasons why either AA or US wanted to get rid of them as fast as possible) also doesn't speak for the plane not being (at least a part of) the cause of the problem.


P.S.: Does anyone know (or have a link) what turned out to be the final cause of the JJ F100 crash in CGH in, I think, 1995? The last I had heard was the rumor that a thrust reverser deployed in flight and that this was thought to have been caused by someone using a cellphone in flight... any truth to that?

Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1625 times:


I was surprised to read that the Fokker F100 is a killer machine, that for me it's a very sad comment and I would like to just say that I had the chance to fly TAM Fokker F100 twice and it is a very reliable, rugged and an airplane with a lot of muscle. That plane is flying like a horse in the south of America and I was impressed with that. Where can you find an airplane that can fly Buenos Aires/Curitiba/Foz do Iguacu/Asuncion/Santiago round trip regulary? I don't know about the A319/320 but it looks that landing the Airbus at Foz do Iguacu will be a challange right? Well for the little F100 it was a piece of cake! I understand that sooner or latter the Fokker will leave but I know TAM will miss the plane.Now about the safety record of the F100 in TAM sometimes it's not the machine but the humans that make an airplane safety record going down!

User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1557 times:


The Fokker 100 is a lovely little plane. Off the top of my head, it's had what, one hull-loss outside Brazil (Macedonian)? I've flown perhpas 20 times on F100s, with Air Inter, Air Littoral, British Airways/TAT, and TAM. Only once had a problem (an aborted flight due to broken cockpit-window latch with TAM).
As you say, it demonstrated itself to be remarkably versatile in South America, especially for PZ who can cover anything as far as SCL and GRU or as near as IGU or AGT (Ciudad del Este).
Having posted the facts of the 5 incidents one too many times, I will just outline their causes:

1. Thrust reverser deployed on climb-out. Aircraft crashed killing all aboard and some on the ground.
2. Bomb went off under seat during flight. Passenger half sucked out of cabin but caught by fellow passenger. With the upper half of his body outside the plane for the rest of the flight, he died. Aircraft repaired.
3. Catastophic engine failure in flight. Large chunk of fuselage cut out by disintegrating engine. one passenger sucked out to his death. Aircraft written-off.
4. Landing gear problem prompted emergency landing. Nose gear failed, if I recall. Aircraft repaired.
5. Fuel starvation forced pilot to perform emergency landing on a field. Landing successful (no casulaties) but airframe damaged beyond repair.

All incidents took place between 1996 and 2002.


Thrsut-reverser: Yes; cell-phone: Don't know, first I hear of it.


How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1533 times:


A proof of malfunction reverse, which manufacture manuals said would never happend can´t be put as the airline fault.

A crazy maniac that decided to suicide himself and exploded a bomb inside a TAM F100 is the airline fault??? Come on!!!

Other problems reported above by XV happened and there is no evidence of negligence of the airline. People can say, or write what they want, but from a total of 5 reports, let´s disconsider the 02 above and reduce to 03. It is more fair.

User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1460 times:


Ok, the bomb can pass (but it happened, blame it on airport authorities if you will), although in the NTSB report I gathered the bomb was planted by a crazy maniac and claimed the life of an innocent passenger. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But hey, the thrust reverser accident was either the fault of Fokker, Rolls Royce or TAM maintenance, or at best, a combination of the three. The same verdict can be delivered to the Lauda 767 crash over Thailand in 1991. Like the F100, the 767 is a safe plane, and like TAM, Lauda is a safe airline, but in both cases, even if they were freak occurrences, either the airline, the engine manufacturer or the aircraft manufacturer--all 3 of which are by and large safe and reputable companies--were at fault. None of them can be fully cleared of blame for the deaths they caused.
The accidents occurred and you cannot whitewash them out of history, especially on the grounds that TAM maintenance were not "warned" about such an eventuality. The engines were built by humans, and the systems to prevent uncommanded reverser deployment were also built by humans, so such a failure (as with any other far-fetched failure) should have been treated as something that always could occur.
The assumption of "never could happen" proved fatal, and in all fairness, TAM should have modified the manual to read "happened once, therefore could happen again". This is all in retrospect, but it goes to say that no airline should assume that reversers cannot deploy at the wrong time.
I'm not saying TAM were negligent. We wouldn't be discussing reversers had the accident never happened. The Lauda Air crash would become increasingly considered a one-in-a-billion chance unfortunate freak occurrence. I'm sure to the day, hundreds of airlines still don't anitcipate the eventuality of an uncommanded reverser deployment. Has there even been one since?
Punto final, JJMNGR, let's accept that there were 5 serious incidents (even IF one was triggered by a cell-phone), none of which were fair, and none of those who died in them deserved to. END OF STORY.


How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7571 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

It is great news that JJ is getting new A320's. My only experience with JJ involves A320's only, and I must say my flights were very enjoyable (and the aircraft fairly new, comfortable and in very good condition). Does anybody know if they will be configured in an all-coach layout or if they will have business class section as well?

If JJ is getting more A320's, it means that (i) the F100's are going to stay with JJ longer until they are ultimately replaced with A318's or Embraers or whatever; or (ii) demand for seats has increased across JJ's routemap and the F100's will retire, leaving JJ with an all-A32x narrowbody fleet. Any information on this?

Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1237 times:

A320 are not going to replace F100. For F100 nothing already decided. There are plans also to change A319´s for A320´s. TAM is in means of certificate A320´s to operate the shuttle service CGH/SDU/CGH. If this aircraft fits this route and would be certificated by Airbus and our DAC, the plan is to change A319 for A320. It is quite the same operational cost with more pax on board.
So there is a chance that all 13 A319 will leave and substitute them for another 13 A320 independently of these new 10 aircrafts for 2005.

Just a correction. The fleet is not all narrow body aircraft. TAM has 09 A332.

But for the F100 no news yet.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

1. Thrust reverser deployed on climb-out. Aircraft crashed killing all aboard and some on the ground.

This can't be the single reason for the crash as an unintentionally deployed thrust reverser won't bring the A/C down.
initially your climb rate will be down to 0ft/min as the engine is still on T/O Pwr. but after the throttle is retarded and the engine shut off you're back to 800-1200 ft/min. still not a lot but on most airfields it is not a problem.
Tested in sim.

In Dutch papers was written that the investigators found a bag of white powder in the cockpit........... which according the police came from the taxi that was hit  Confused
Of course i wasn't there.

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

It won´t bring acft down if crew knows what is happening, shut the engine down, turn arround and land.

The problem is that Fokker manual said the reverse would never work with landing gear down and aircraft in the air. Seems there had some sensor indicating landing gear down and on the the ground.
When a manufacture manual says something would NEVER happen, so the situation is not trainned.

But it happend and as crew did not had proper trainning under a situation suposed naver to happend, they did not know what was happening and started to fight with the aircraft. Reverse turning being applied and they returning to position, on and on, and on...
After discovered it MAY happen instead of NEVER happend, the issue was part of new simulator trainning and none of flight crew crashed...now they know what may cause and actions to correct.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
TAM - To Order 4 A380's + 4 Options? posted Fri Nov 30 2007 04:30:14 by WINGS
TAM To Order 25 E195s To Replace F100s posted Fri Jan 27 2006 11:44:28 by Hardiwv
TAM To Order 20 A320s posted Wed May 25 2005 19:30:22 by PPVRA
TAM's Airbuses To Gfa? posted Fri Dec 7 2001 19:39:25 by Theairbusguy
CIT Order 20 Airbuses posted Wed Mar 12 2008 06:05:58 by JPRM1
TAM Order 4x 777-300ER posted Wed Nov 1 2006 01:50:55 by Sq212
TAM Order (20 Planes) In June: A318 Or E190? posted Tue May 23 2006 13:20:48 by Maperrin
TAM Confirms More Airbuses posted Sat Nov 6 2004 18:21:34 by JJMNGR
French Oficial Announce Thai Order 8 Airbuses posted Tue May 13 2003 15:16:14 by ROP
TAM Axes SSA/REC-CDG And SSA-MIA posted Wed Jul 22 2009 17:24:32 by C010T3